Gallup: Gingrich’s voters split evenly between Romney and Santorum as second choice

posted at 5:25 pm on March 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

So Newt was right. Him dropping out to “help” Santorum would backfire by boosting Romney’s chances of clinching a majority of delegates before the convention.

Second look at Newt staying in the race to gratify his delusions of grandeur about being chosen as a consensus nominee at a brokered convention?

Some conservative Republicans have called for Gingrich to drop out of the race on the assumption that conservative primary voters would then unite behind Santorum as the conservative alternative to the more moderate Romney. But Gallup data indicate that Gingrich voters would not be likely to coalesce behind Santorum, suggesting that factors other than candidate ideology may be attracting voters to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney.

Gallup can simulate Republican preferences without Gingrich in the race by removing Gingrich votes and reassigning them to his voters’ second-choice candidate. The results of this procedure suggest that national GOP preferences would change little if Gingrich dropped out. The reconfigured preferences show Romney getting 40% of the vote and Santorum getting 33%. That seven-percentage-point Romney lead is essentially the same as the six-point (34% to 28%) Romney lead in March 8-15 interviewing with Gingrich support included.

Romney takes 40 percent of Newt’s voters versus 39 percent for Santorum. As noted yesterday, when Fox News polled a hypothetical head to head race between Romney and Santorum a few days ago, they found Mitt leading 49/44. Has there been any poll to date showing a surge for Team Sweater Vest if Gingrich drops out? If not, then the best argument for Newt quitting isn’t that it would help stop Romney but rather that by staying in he’s needlessly impeding the coronation of a candidate who is, unfortunately, inevitable. If you want to beat Obama and think there’s no way realistically that Romney, as the leader in delegates, won’t be chosen at a brokered convention, then your best option now is to hope that the field clears ASAP so that he can concentrate on the general.

It’s a complicated bet. But they believe that in a contested-convention scenario, and perhaps only then, the usual presidential metrics — money, momentum — will mean little, and it’ll come down to a damaged moderate versus a tested warrior.

“Newt is no shrinking violet,” says Katon Dawson, an adviser to Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich super PAC. “His whole life, nothing has every come easy to him. I’ve known him for many years. He’s having a good time running for president. He’s not going to end this.”

“Remember, these conventions are odd animals,” Dawson says. “If nobody gets this thing on the first ballot, all hell will start breaking loose. If you start to think about who wins debates, and then think about Gingrich getting up there, in that moment, talking about his life and why he should be president of the United States, you can see it.”

Explain to me why the guy who finishes a distant third would ever be considered as a compromise choice at a brokered convention. The only argument I can see is if you had someone who looked extremely electable against Obama compared to the top two vote-getters. Imagine Pawlenty, say, in Newt’s position here; moderates in Romney’s camp and social cons in Santorum’s camp might see him as an acceptable alternative given that he’s sufficiently bland to turn the general election into a pure referendum on Obama. Needless to say, that’s not what we have in Gingrich:

The numbers for all three are lame compared to McCain’s(!) but if enthusiasm is the name of the game — and it would be after a brokered convention that threatened to shatter the party — then the third-place candidate here is your last choice, not your first. In fact, these numbers are tepid enough that if the primary drags on and enthusiasm for all three sinks accordingly, it makes the possibility of a dark-horse nominee marginally higher. How much worse could a Christie or Ryan do here compared to the rest?

Exit question via the Atlantic: Has Romney run a bad campaign? I honestly don’t know how to answer it. On the one hand, he’s got the best organization and the best fundraising by a country mile. On the other hand, he’s facing two has-beens running barebones operations and is still struggling to win. On the other other hand, it’s astounding that a candidate as widely disliked and distrusted by the base as Romney has the pole position on the nomination. He’s actually done better than McCain in a majority of the primaries held so far. The only reason he’s off the pace in terms of delegates is because, as Jay Cost explains, the GOP delegate calendar was frontloaded in 2008 (replete with some early winner-take-all states) whereas this year it’s a slower, steadier distribution. To borrow a March Madness analogy, if a three seed plays a ten seed in the Final Four, leads wire to wire, and ends up winning by, say, five points, did they play a “good game”? Granted, they didn’t have to play Duke and they shouldn’t have had to sweat for the win, but they got it done under pressure.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Now that Romney’s coronation looks inevitable, we have articles coming out that give me even more angst about him being the nominee. First, was Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s Atty. General leading the fight at the Supreme Court against Obamacare, stating that nominating Romney will take Obamacare off the table and he is very concerned about that.

Today, we have a Reuter’s piece where we learn that a Romney presidency will basically be the re-installment of the Bush administration since Romney’s campaign has been shaped by over two dozen Bush administration allies:

I am very disappointed when I hear people like Sarah Palin and Allahpundit speak approvingly of disregarding and tossing aside the votes of millions of Republican primary voters in favor of installing someone whose name never appeared on a primary ballot. It is disgusting.

bluegill on March 17, 2012 at 8:41 AM

unfortunately millions more disagree with your premise. majority still rules in this country. you elite mitt guys think you can put your jackboots on our necks. not this time around. the people are standing up and voting.

your guy can’t cut the mustard. tough.

renalin on March 17, 2012 at 9:08 AM

This is your argument for a brokered convention? Do you really think you’ll get the candidate you want if that happens? And you’re fine with millions of votes being nullified in favor of a candidate chosen by the “elites”?

This is your argument for a brokered convention? Do you really think you’ll get the candidate you want if that happens? And you’re fine with millions of votes being nullified in favor of a candidate chosen by the “elites”?

Syzygy on March 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM

great point Syzygy. All these anti mitts rail on about taking it into a brokered convention saying that the elites are choosing Romney for us, that Romney’s being “shoved” down our throats, etc, etc, etc.

But taking it to a brokered convention does exactly that! We will end up with several thousand delegates wheeling and dealing amongst themselves, haggling this and that point and putting forth a person that would effectively, in the end, disenfranchise millions of people’s real primary votes.

Elites will REALLY be doing the choosing then, but if your candidate gets chosen (ABR), I’m sure they’ll find all manner of rationalizations to be happy with it.

What a well reasoned and intelligent rebuttal of what I wrote. I particularly appreciate the bullet points and the effective deconstruction of the terms I used. You are quite persuasive in your clever counterargument and elegant in your choice of language. Very ladylike as well.

This anti-Santorum bunk is really starting to remind me of the left’s attacks on Bush. Keep repeating the lies and they become truth.

What was a lie?

You and your swallowing of this bullshit, because you don’t even listen to Santorum, is what is an “affront.”

Santorum is an unelectable idiot. All he is doing is strengthening Obama at this point. If he cared about the country he would quit and go away.

I doubt you really care about being at all honest in promoting your candidate, though.

The concept of a conservative nanny state is an oxymoron, Which makes santorum is just a regular moron.

romney doesn’t give a rats patootie about the tea party. agreed? if it goes to a brokered convention at least those “elites” will have to listen. there we have a chance. with romney we are dead in the water. he’ll hire some florida squish in disguise like rubio or west, and try and pawn them off.

No, I don’t agree with that assertion. I did a search on Bing to see if I could find anything to support it, and the closest I could find were articles reporting that various tea party groups don’t think he’s conservative enough. But Romney has spoken before tea party groups and even obtained endorsements from some. Can you point me to any reputable sources to support your assertion?

if it goes to a brokered convention at least those “elites” will have to listen. there we have a chance.

renalin on March 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I’m not seeing how a brokered convention would force the “elites” to listen. And, even if it did, I don’t see how it would change the outcome.

Romney has trouble getting over 50% of the vote in almost every state as the conservative votes put together for Santorum and Gingrich are near 70% now. So how does that mesh with Romney getting the majority of votes? It doesn’t — he has trouble clearing the 30′s in most states which means there is no majority.

My bet is if None of the Above was on the ballot, it would win by a landslide!

With a show of hands – how many of you Santorum supporters have been supporting him since the start? (He declared in June 2011) Well, who was your first choice, second choice, third choice? Bachmann, Cain, Newt, Perry then Newt again? How about those who weren’t even running? Trump, Palin, Christie, Daniels, Bush – did you want these folks in the race? According to ALL NATIONAL GOP POLLS – Santorum polled in the LOW SINGLE DIGITS CONSISTENTLY (5% and lower) and only broke into double digits at the start of 2012. Santorum is the absolute BOTTOM OF THE BARREL for those who are ABR (anybody but Romney) It is a shame that Romney must spend all this money now when it would be best used against Obama. And face it, Santorum and Newt know this. IS YOUR DISLIKE FOR ROMNEY REALLY WORTH AN OBAMA SECOND TERM?

Nothing like a Candidate that will MAKE THE OPPOSITION’S CAMPAIGN COMMERCIALS FOR THEM!!

williamg on March 17, 2012 at 2:52 AM

Romney’s strategy is sound. If the economy is improving (even if only slightly and in spite of Obama) it is best to say exactly that rather than deny the improvement and leave one open to the charge of denying that the economy is improving (for whatever reason -e.g. not understanding the economy, hating President Obama etc).

If the economy does not continue to improve the Obama campaign and the media is not going to accuse Romney of saying the economy is improving when in fact it is not improving.

You, and Mark Levine, have not thought this through. When you consider Romney’s tactics, start with the premise that he’s a lot smarter than you are.

Basilsbest on March 17, 2012 at 5:10 AM

Okay – so now I know that this guy and “Dark Star” are Romneybots!

Yeah – and it’s “Levin”, NOT “Levine” Romneybot!

Uh – Levin ALREADY cut Romney’s soundbite – the same way Obama and the DNC will. It says: “The Economy is in a Recovery Mode – thanks to the policies of Obama.”

There will be NO “putting it in context” during the campaign – The MEDIA won’t ALLOW that!

IT WAS A STUPID THING TO SAY!!!

The “putting it in context” argument applies as much as if he said:

“911 was Caused by George W. Bush – but he didn’t DIRECTLY give the order to The Terrorists.”

Well, who was your first choice, second choice, third choice? Bachmann, Cain, Newt, Perry then Newt again? How about those who weren’t even running? Trump, Palin, Christie, Daniels, Bush – did you want these folks in the race? According to ALL NATIONAL GOP POLLS – Santorum polled in the LOW SINGLE DIGITS CONSISTENTLY (5% and lower) and only broke into double digits at the start of 2012.
BabysCatz on March 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM

The not-Mitts have all had the same pattern – a sudden rise and a sudden fall, in looking at the chart you see the classic “Head and Shoulders” pattern for each of them. Santorum, in his turn as flavor of the month, peaked about mid-Feb:2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

I still can’t shake the fact that we are making a real mistake thinking Romney will win or if he does win that he’ll do the heavy lifting to really make changes in Washington.

KickandSwimMom on March 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I fear for my country …… I am with you Kick&Swimmom ….
we are so screwed …..

conservative tarheel on March 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Romney will do nothing on entitlements, including Obamacare, other than tinker at the edges. He will “manage the decline,” if you will. If Romney is the next GOP president, we are in big trouble. Who will save us then? The Democrats? Long term, if the choice is Obama v. Romney, we really may be better off with Obama winning.

Ok – Romney-haters, take a look at these links to Real Clear Politics showing long-running match-up polling between Obama versus Romney, then Obama versus Santorum. They consist of most polling (including Gallup and Rasmussen) This is where we “Mitt-bots” can see that Romney has a far better chance at beating Obama than Santorum does. I guess this means nothing.

If it’s true that Santorum can’t win the nomination, then why are Romney supporters so worked up over his staying in the race? Romney is free to act on the basis of his assumption that he will be the nominee, and begin his general election campaign against Obama. Nothing is stopping him. He doesn’t even have to waste his resources defending himself or attacking Santorum, since he can’t lose anyway. In fact, I would think that Romney would be thrilled to have someone as “toxic” as Santorum continue to attack him. Wouldn’t that only increase his credibility among the coveted moderate and independent voters? What’s the issue?

Just Sayin on March 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Heh. Well played. It’s not like anything the candidates can say to each other hasn’t already been noted in oppo research so arguing that they’re hurting each other is bunk.

Ok – Romney-haters, take a look at these links to Real Clear Politics showing long-running match-up polling between Obama versus Romney, then Obama versus Santorum. They consist of most polling (including Gallup and Rasmussen) This is where we “Mitt-bots” can see that Romney has a far better chance at beating Obama than Santorum does. I guess this means nothing.

I can think of many reasons for Newt and Rick to stay in the primary race.

For one, when Newt and Rick drop out, the media will focus like a laser beam on Romney and will develop unattractive memes that will spread widely and gradually become “facts” in the Yahoo-digesting public mind. Having four Republicans running takes the heat off Romney and makes the establishment of these sorts of memes more difficult.

For another, Newt and Rick are more conservative, and they force Romney to pretend that he’s conservative, too. This moves the “Overton window” to the right. I have a liberal acquaintance who was whining that the national political conversation had moved “too far to the right” and he hoped Rick and Newt would drop out soon for this reason. That’s a good thing.

Third, Mitt is still giving bad answers to questions–such as the way he describes the merits of Romneycare. He’s still going through a growth curve. He needs to tighten up his answers so that Obama won’t blow him away. More practice is good for Romney, since, let’s face it, he’s not a “natural” in any sense of the word, and he doesn’t really connect well.

Finally, Rick and Newt make Mitt look like a “moderate” to middle squishes whose only desire in life is to get gas prices down while not electing a supposed right-wing zealot when doing so. If Newt and Rick weren’t running, the media would be painting Mitt as an “extreme” Wall Street predator, but they can’t really do that now as long as he’s running to the left of Newt and Rick. These two make Mitt look balanced, and that’s appealing to the broad electorate.

That’s why I’m voting for either Rick or Newt in the primary and encouraging them to stay in the race as long as possible. Without them as foils, Mitt wouldn’t have a chance.

Third, Mitt is still giving bad answers to questions–such as the way he describes the merits of Romneycare. He’s still going through a growth curve. He needs to tighten up his answers so that Obama won’t blow him away. More practice is good for Romney, since, let’s face it, he’s not a “natural” in any sense of the word, and he doesn’t really connect well.

This is a sane, intelligent argument without unnecessary hostility …

While I don’t agree that Romney is “pretending” to be conservative, there is no question that he is a technocrat, not an idealogue. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly can be, if one is willing to totally abandon any core principles in order to get things done. I believe Romney’s actions as governor indicate that he did not abandon conservative principles, but he did compromise….just as Santorum did and Gingrich as well. But they are able to articulate conservative principles in a way that connects with what grassroots conservatives believe. Romney has not been good at doing that – he is certainly NOT a natural, as you say, and he has spent the bulk of his career articulating how to fix things, rather than why they should be fixed. He has to realize that conservatives need to hear who he is and what he believes, not just what he can do.

Now that Romney’s coronation looks inevitable, we have articles coming out that give me even more angst about him being the nominee. First, was Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s Atty. General leading the fight at the Supreme Court against Obamacare, stating that nominating Romney will take Obamacare off the table and he is very concerned about that.

Today, we have a Reuter’s piece where we learn that a Romney presidency will basically be the re-installment of the Bush administration since Romney’s campaign has been shaped by over two dozen Bush administration allies:

I still can’t shake the fact that we are making a real mistake thinking Romney will win or if he does win that he’ll do the heavy lifting to really make changes in Washington.

KickandSwimMom on March 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

If Romney doesn’t get the required 1144 delegates before the convention, then he’s not the least bit inevitable. If he goes all the way to the convention and still falls short, people will be very concerned about whether he’s reached the maximum support he’s going to get.

The GOP wants to win this one. If Romney looks to be a sure loser, and they can come up with a credible alternative, don’t be surprised if his delegates melt away like a snowball in the summer sun.

On the other hand, if Romney supporters can convince you that he’s inevitable anyway, then they can push him to 1144 delegates.

Right now, Romney supporters are desperate to convince everyone that Romney is unstoppable, and that Santorum stands no chance.

I’m a Newt supporter, and if Newt drops out I think I could be persuaded to vote for Lawn Gnome in light of the two other guys. Romney or Santorum? Gimme a break. That’s a choice between a moderate Democrat or a representative of the Party of Stupid.